Correspondence re Flood Management Works

Hugh comments on these emails:

In view of this latest response from Janet Wallace, it would seem that we have to let people people know that we still want their reports, but that I may have to leave direct response to them.

----- Original Message -----

From: Janet Wallace

To: Hugh and Elizabeth

Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:31 PM

Subject: RE: Flood Management works

Dear Mr Barlow,

This site was a holiday camp way back to the 1930’s and before that grasslands (probably wet). It has not had any previous contaminative use, there was no “decommissioning process” on it ( that was on an adjacent site owned by East Devon) and cannot in any way be compared to an MOD site with tank testing. It is these extreme comparisons which can lead to misinterpretation.

It is standard practice to require a contaminated land survey for almost any large developement site, and the planning condition in relation to that is a standard, nationally applied condition. It was not required because we thought there was contamination, quite the contrary. The request does not pre-suppose in any way that there is contamination – it requires developers to confirm that there is not (strangely enough so that we can confidently answer queries such as yours). If contamination is found in minor or major amounts it requires the developer to agree with us the appropriate way of dealing with it. If you read the whole report you will see that the method used is for consultants to predict what might be there given previous uses of the site or surrounding land and then look for it. It seems that some people have stopped reading at this point. However the report goes on to conclude that contaminants were not found and therefore no specific works were required. This concurs with what we would have expected on this site which had no former contaminative uses. As far as we are concerned that is the end of the matter unless the developer comes across anything of concern during the developement, at which point he will contact me.

Since your email of this morning I have had further correspondence from the EA confirming that they are perfectly satisfied with the arrangements in place for handling surface and groundwater.

As I said I would prefer to answer queries from people directly affected by the site, but have nothing further to add on these particular matters, and will not do so via a third party.

Yours sincerely,

J H Wallace

Janet Wallace, EHO

Environmental Protection Team

East Devon DC

Knowle

Sidmouth EX10 8HL

01395 571647

jwallace@eastdevon.gov.uk

From: Hugh and Elizabeth
Sent: 22 March 2011 12:19
To: Janet Wallace; Barbara Dearden-Potter
Subject: Re: Flood Management works

Dear Ms Wallace

I had not sought to irritate you, and, if what they are doing in excavating for the lagoon etc. is not digging deep enough to raise any contaminants (and I am prepared to believe that, as most of the possible contaminants from earlier land use would be heavy minerals such as lead), then there is indeed no cause for concern. Thank you for the full and helpful detail of your reply.

At a much earlier stage, you yourself had been concerned about the possibility of contaminants on the site, and I do not think we had been made privy to the results of any subsequent checks you may have made. We were only aware that you had not raised concerns at the final planning stage, but that sampling of the water to be returned during the pipeline operation was part of the recommendations. We are happy in particular to be reassured that sampling procedures are in place, and we could not be aware that they were already so.

I do not think it is quite accurate to say that there never was any contamination on the site, but I accept that the decommissioning process may have been thorough enough. I am simply aware from my own previous experience (of a former MoD site) that an area of tank testing, for example, had been excluded from available land for house building or fruit tree planting, while it was perfectly safe for surface activities.

In this location, you may speak of conjecture, but it is a reasonable line of inquiry. As far as hearsay is concerned, I may say that Mrs Dearden-Potter herself has a clear view of the site from her flat, and her informant as to what was being done may well have been her upstair neighbour, a retired builder who also has binoculars. She herself was a longtime member and sometime Chair of the Town Council, and is familiar with planning regulations and procedures. As you may see, I am forwarding our correspondence to her.

We are not ignorant, and it is better that we, from a base of some understanding, raise legitimate concerns, so that we have the information to pass on to other local people who are concerned.

We will do so.

We are not questioning your professional judgment, on this or, for example, the noise issue. We are quite confident that you would not wish to be responsible for anything that went badly wrong.

I hope we may be able to put ourselves back on a footing of mutual respect.

Yours sincerely

Hugh Barlow

----- Original Message -----

From: Janet Wallace

To: Hugh and Elizabeth

Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:07 AM

Subject: RE: Flood Management works

Dear Mr Barlow,

Thankyou for contacting me.

Firstly, I would like to reassure you that extensive investigations over several years have concluded that no contaminants of concern have been found on the site – it has a long history as a greenfield site and holiday park. There was a gas works in the past just off the site but this was decommissioned and dealt with many years ago and in the intervening years no contamination issues have arisen on that land, which incidentally East Devon DC still own. There may have been some minor surface deposits in the holiday park but these have been properly removed in the oversite works and there never was any indication of contamination at any deep level so I don’t know where you have got your information from. I note that you imply that they are “digging deep”. This is not the case as they have no reason to do so. We often find that some local people do not believe what they are being told and there has been a certain amount of conjecture locally based on no facts at all. This is not helpful to anybody and all the advice, assistance and legal controls we are using is based on our collective professional experience and analysis of factual information.

Secondly, you seem to be confusing two issues. All issues associated with ground and surface water run-off are being carefully monitored by both the developers and the Environment Agency, and the discharge arrangements have been agreed. We are all working closely together and are visiting the site often. Again I don’t know where you have got this information from but if you wish to ask that person to contact me directly I would be able to explain to them what is happening. None of the regulators involved have any concerns at the moment and have had nothing but good reports about the operation of the site. Clearly this is a very large site, with some unique aspects to be dealt with and a very large developement to follow. It is inevitable that from time to time issues will arise but they will be followed up as appropriate at the time.

The issue with the return of sea water from the lagoons to the sea is a separate matter. Again I don’t know where you have got your information from but I will explain the process. Sand will be dredged from the sea bed near the Isle of Wight in exactly the same way as it is done all the time to replenish beaches – most recently those at Bournemouth and Eastbourne. This has been done by Westminster Dredging for many years and the public have of course enjoyed the new sand quite safely! Once on board the ship it is dewatered prior to being transported to Seaton. Once in our waters, sea water is then added to enable the material to be pumped ashore. The material plus water is pumped straight into settling lagoons. The sea water is then piped back out to sea. We are expecting that there may be airbubbles entrained in this water which may be visible. At no time in this process is there any potential for the seawater to become contaminated and this process is done on a regular basis elsewhere without a problem.

Finally you have not mentioned noise in this email but you have done so in the past. I would like to stress that the measures put in place to mitigate some potential noise issues have been done and completed in full consultation with us and we consider that the developer is achieving Best Practicable Means for these operations. It cannot be the case that a developement of this scale can operate with no additional noise of any type and our negotiations have reflected this. We have had to take into account that the importation by sea process was offered primarily with a view to restricting noise disturbance to residents of Axmouth and Seaton who would otherwise have been affected by substantially more vehicle noise than is now the case. We have also taken into account that the pipeline will only be used for a few hours in every 24 hour period, and that these will themselves be temporary works. Finally it would have been entirely inappropriate to try and manage any noise emissions from the pipeline by setting noise levels as the background noise levels in that area vary so much – between 30 and 70dB depending on the weather conditions, sea conditions, natural movement of shingle and flapping of halyards in the yacht club.

We will not be able to follow up any anonymous or conjectural enquiries. If any individual residents have concerns it would be helpful if you could ask them to email me.

Yours sincerely,

J H Wallace

Janet Wallace, EHO

Environmental Protection Team

East Devon DC

Knowle

Sidmouth EX10 8HL

01395 571647

jwallace@eastdevon.gov.uk

From: Hugh and Elizabeth
Sent: 21 March 2011 15:39
To: Janet Wallace
Subject: Fw: Flood Management works

Dear Ms Wallace

Works at Harbour Road, Seaton

I am informed that Tesco contractors have been emptying waste water from their operations into the drainage system. Whilst in the normal way there is nothing to prevent their doing so, it would be concerning if they were draining possible contaminants from deep excavations.

It would be disproportionate to make an issue of this, but one of the principles of the conditions attached to the subsequent pipeline operations is that, when water is to be discharged from the site, it should first be sampled to check for contaminants.

I wonder if you might request of the contractors that, as soon as they have the sampling equipment, they should test for contaminants before discharging any water to the drains or to the sea?

Thank you for your early attention

Hugh Barlow

Chair, Seaton Development Trust